Crime and Punishment: Moral Deterrents for Crime

I was reading an article in the June 22 issue of The New Yorker by John Seabrook that described the Ceasefire program that aims to curb gang violence. The article described a collaboration between the Cincinnati police department and an anthropologist named David Kennedy. Among the interesting elements of the program was that gangs were brought into meetings with police, former gang members, clergy, and social workers, and were told to stop the violence.

In these meetings, the gangs were given a strong moral message. Obviously, gang members who committed crimes stood the chance of punishment, but there was also a clear message that the violence was wrong and that it damaged the community. According to the article, the program has had some success.

Why should a moral message have an effect on gang violence? The United States already has tough penalties for drug crimes and gang crimes.

One way to think about this is that incarceration (and even capital punishment) for crime sets up a business model. A potential gang member gets an extended family for being in a gang. He (most gang members are men) stands some chance of being the victim of violence and some chance of losing freedom to the prison system, but these are potential prices to pay for the benefit of being part of the gang as well as the money and prestige that may come along with success in the gang.

So gang members are normally doing a cost-benefit analysis of their situation.

There is some evidence, though, that the moral dimension can provide an alternative motivation for action. For example, Ann Tenbruensel and David Messick published a study in 1999 in Administrative Science Quarterly in which they had business students play the role of a company manager who had to decide whether a factor should pay to have a factory's pollution scrubbers updated to satisfy new pollution regulations or to violate those regulations. There were three conditions in this study. In the first, there was no punishment for polluting. In the second, there was a large fine for polluting. In the third, there was a small fine for polluting.

The interesting result of this study was that participants in the study tended to argue that the company should install the pollution scrubbers both when there was a heavy fine for polluting and also when there was no fine. When there was a small fine, though, people tended to opt to have the factory pollute the environment.

Why?

When there is a large fine, it is worth paying to upgrade the factory. That is a good business decision. When there is a small fine, it is worth paying the fine rather than upgrading. That is also a good business decision. When there is no fine, though, people tended to cast the decision in moral terms rather than business terms. Without a fine, failing to upgrade the factory was a statement that the company did not care about the environment. The moral dimension of the problem was actually stronger than a weak fine.

Perhaps the same thing is going on in the gang situation. When gang members are faced only with jail time, then they are weighing the benefits of gang membership against their freedom. When the gang members have to face the influence of their activities on the community, then the choice takes on a moral dimension. Gang members are part of multiple communities, and the gang is just one. By highlighting that membership in one community harms another community to which gang members belong, this program forces them to decide which community is more important.

There still has to be a system of punishments for those people who still opt for gang violence, of course. But this program highlights the complexity of the decisions that we face, and how small changes in the way those decisions are framed can have a big influence on people's behavior.

As the use of web is increasing various fields are just adding value to it. It can be obtain from the article that the relation between people and legal issue which is appriaciating. Like this the affected people need counseling as well as Responses to Interrogatorieswhich will help them to recover from the curse.

The subject of gangs is very complex and punishment its self can even be the cause of the violence, as we humans are still half monkey and monkeys do make mistakes .Monkeys also form gangs or troops.It is a natural method that is in our nature to have safety in numbers and to satisfy our greed to obtain food or money by the use of a group in numbers who can manipulate a smaller group or gang, making them potential enemies or affiliations .Its the way of life throughout the world ,Gangs are in all forms , some gangs do charity work , some sell drugs , some like governing bodies sell alcohol , its all gangs , its human nature . Humans in a group tend to become as one and very loyal to that group and they will over look morals to obtain their goal .Every human also has morals , and a moral telling off could very well make that person realize the logic in doing the right thing rather the wrong as buy punishing a person with jail can make that person very bitter feeling resentment and on release can even make them come back into society worse. So whats the answer? lock them up forever, creating high taxes or simply give them the electric chair ? problem with that is we are back to the word "morals". lets set aside what the person has done to be punished just for now ,As i believe that we have to have regulation in society for it to function but what is regular overlooked is the reason for the violence , money is the first problem, maybe barter would make a come back and bring peoples creative side out making things of value to swap for other items ,We then have mental health issues and no treatment leaving the most crazy forming gangs because no one else will hang round with them .If money is the in thing then availability of work is needed with decent pay then maybe people wont have to form large hunting and gathering groups , as they will be occupied and content with what they have . Rounding it all off though i was reading of a punishment where a person who commits in a certain country a crime and is sentenced to a number of years in detention , the sentence is to just lose their freedom but they get a cabin in a wood , tv , steaks to eat , and the family can stay with them on weekends as what have they done wrong to lose their partner or parent ?It not everyone's idea of punishment but it does imply morals to the subject .I know some crimes are unforgivable and the punishment should fit the crime but no one stops to think what if the person found guilty was innocent ? and for that reason alone i think removing freedom in humane conditions is a moral decision and also treating the worst of the worst with compassion may create thought in the right direction and a brighter future or it may not and a large percent humans truly are rotten to the core beyond hope .Maybe if the world was more open and everything we need was easy to obtain then would people need to form gangs and not use violence to survive, but instead have plenty to share . I do know that gangs involved in capitalism ends in bloodshed and gangs who live in the rainforest live in peace and only take what they need as its in plenty . .